Talk:Tank Man

New image

http://i.imgur.com/yY9Ullg.jpg --144.122.250.186 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this Tank Man too?

Is the person that appears on a bicycle on 2:50 the same Tank Man? The reporter says he is. But I can't find anywhere else that he tried to stop the tanks as well on a bike? http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/nieuws/buitenland/2.33381/MV_140514_TIE_2_feiten%2B%2B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.154.85 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tank Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Will start soon--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• A few comments:

• One fact is referenced in the body and the lead picture. It only needs to be referenced in the body.
• More adequate referencing needed
• Shouldn't the parameter in Citation #15 be CBS News?
• Expand Citation #17 and #31.
• Four dead links.
• First image should have a fair use rationale.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I'll have to fail this because no action within ten days. Feel free to renominate.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Tank Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221173327/http://www1.appledaily.atnext.com:80/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20060602&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11866&art_id=5986243 to http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20060602&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11866&art_id=5986243
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081219055135/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/20010101faessay4257-p0/andrew-j-nathan/the-tiananmen-papers.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010101faessay4257-p0/andrew-j-nathan/the-tiananmen-papers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151207073824/http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm25.html to http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm25.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100529181049/http://205.188.238.181:80/time/time100/leaders/profile/rebel.html to http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/leaders/profile/rebel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of the event?

User Stuartfranklin was convinced that the photo was shot on 4th June, not on 5th as currently stated in the article, and we can quote a recent book http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2016/april/05/how-stuart-franklin-took-his-tank-man-photograph/ for that. According to the People's Liberation Army at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article's timeline, that means the tank man was blocking the tanks while they are entering the square instead of leaving it. --Skyfiler (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has visited the site a number of times in person, it is clear by the location of the landmarks in the photos and video that the tanks are indeed leaving T-square, not entering it. The Square itself is seen in the background with with the large Chinese museum visible to the upper left of the photos. I can't speak to the date, but even a scan of Google Earth can verify that they the tanks are heading east after departing from the northeast corner of T-square. Vespid (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the location and direction be clarified?

Currently, the article states "The incident took place at the north edge of Tiananmen Square," which isn't quite true. The incident took place almost a block away from Tiananmen square, which is important because the tank column had actually left the Square, not heading towards it or along it as many public discussions and articles elsewhere misrepresent (or at least leave unclear). I realize it is somewhat implied, but should it be stated more clearly here that the tanks had left the square and are heading away when this confrontation occurred? Since we don't know what they had just done, where they were going, or what they were about to do, it seems to me that being as specific as possible based on what we do know is important. To anyone that has actually been to the site, the actual location and direction is clear in the wider photos and vids of the event. Vespid (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tank Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/behind-the-scenes-tank-man-of-tiananmen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306041054/http://pomona.edu/Magazine/PCMFL09/FStankman.shtml to http://pomona.edu/Magazine/PCMFL09/FStankman.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern Technology?

Unfortunately, since all of the (known) images that we have of the incident are from in front of the tanks, Tank Man's back is to us, and he never turns around so his face is hidden. But would it be feasible to use modern photo-enhancement technology to resolve the logos on the shopping bags? CFLeon (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

yeah, can't we just say ENHANCE and then *whooosh* *the picture zooms in all pixelated* and then *WOAHHH the picture got clearer, it's like a 16k image of some chineese student's face BLASTING out the light from all the pixels all over the screen* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.135.56 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

also known as the Unknown Protester or Unknown Rebel

Do these terms have any currency? If not, they shouldn't be in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In the West, this individual is almost exclusively known as Tank Man, as that is how our media came to refer to him. However, within China and elsewhere in Asia, he may very well be known by other names. I wouldn't be too hasty to remove the alternative names (which may be translated from a language other than English) before I removed them. See the section Tank Man#International notability and censorship. General Ization ^Talk 22:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, TIME seems to have thought the name "Unknown Rebel" was sufficiently attached to this individual (or should be) that they used it to refer to him in their 1998 retrospective "Time 100: The Most Influential Images of the Century". Though they later came to refer to him as Tank Man in "Time 100: The Most Influential Images of All Time", that should be sufficient to cement that alternative name in the lead. Both are mentioned in the article. General Ization ^Talk 22:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Business Insider Article really an adequate source for claim [4] that, quote "Inside China, the image and the accompanying events are subject to censorship"?

I am not disputing the claim itself, which may be true, but rather I am disputing the source. Business Insider (BI) is an American financial and business news website founded in 2007. Naturally its wheelhouse is Business News. It should not be taken seriously as a scholarly source for a serious claim about a historical event. Business Insider publishes original reporting and aggregates material from other outlets. As of 2011, it maintained a liberal policy on the use of anonymous sources. It has also published native advertising and granted sponsors editorial control of its content. On a few occasions, Business Insider has published stories that were factually incorrect. It has been criticized for using clickbait to attract viewership. Is this really the best source we can find for the suggestive claim that "Inside China, the [image of Tank Man] and the accompanying events are subject to censorship?"

Furthermore, The Business Insider article (whose author is Alexandra Ma, and was published Jun 4, 2019, not Jacob Harrison in 2018 as the citation currently claims) is sensationally titled "30 photos from the Tiananmen Square protests that China has tried to erase from history" but the article itself is mostly a collection of images of events that happened in and around Tiananmen square, with a sentence here and there to provide a limited context. "Scroll down to learn about the history of the Tiananmen Square incident — through 30 photos the Chinese government doesn't want you to see." the article declares sensationally, after a bullet-pointed list amounting to an oversimplified understanding of events. No sources are cited, no scholars are consulted. This is an English language Business magazine whose headquarters are in New York. These are photos which were covered in the international press at the time, press who were allowed into China to photograph the events. The photographer Jeff Widener of the Associated Press was nominated for a Pulitzer prize. China allows its people to go abroad, and allows the international press within its boarders. Could China's Government and Communist Party really successfully and thoroughly bury a photo like this when it is one of the most famous photos of all time? Furthermore, why would they want to erase the history of this specific incident, when it did not result in the protester being run over? He was escorted away by fellow plainclothes citizens. Had the tank actually run over Tank Man, then perhaps it would make more sense to attempt to cover it up, but even so the man would have doubtlessly had several family members, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues who would have noticed his sudden absence. Plenty of people in China had family members killed in these protests, both soldiers and civilians, and were not censored for speaking on the matter.

The Chinese language version of this article mentions that government at the time had a propaganda documentary film produced called "Fluttering, the Flag of the Republic" which called the man "A strong armed thug who blocked the tank" (the English translation is unwieldy). Unfortunately The Chinese language article only cites a youtube video containing a clip supposedly from the 1989 propaganda film made against the protesters. It find it much more likely that the Chinese government tried to paint the protesters in a negative light than to hide the photographs of the events itself, which would have required a much more thorough undertaking. Most photos at the time weren't stored on digital devices, but were stored physically on photographs, and these photographs were paper-thin, and could be hidden easily. These photos received international coverage. The claim is dubious at best. Furthermore, both claims can't be true simultaneously. The Chinese government can't have tried to censor Tank Man's very existence while also attacking his character as a "thug" or a "gangster" depending on how you translate the term. One or the other might be true, but not both.

If the article is to make this claim of censorship, better sources should be provided. I know that is difficult because most en.wiki editors do not speak or read Mandarin. In any case, I'd like to remove the unsubstantiated claim, but I'd rather not start an "edit war", so instead I'll start a discussion and let others decide the fate of the claim.

IShiezai1Z (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This bad source was rectified by Rublov on 11 June 2021 (UTC). The source that replaced it is a New York Times article. This is a bit more reputable than the original clickbait article from Business Insider, however the New York Times article merely sources a Radio Free Asia article. Radio Free Asia is widely known to be a US-government funded media outlet. Since this is the real source for the claims of censorship in the New York Times article, it is reasonable to assume that NYT source should be replaced with the Radio Free Asia source. However I believe the Radio Free Asia sources violates WP:NPOV. A US-funded media outlet is not a reliable source for information about US state enemies. We would no sooner cite the Chinese state media for information about what goes on in New York City. A better source is still needed. If the Chinese government is too repressive for a real source to emerge, that is unfortunate, however that leaves us unable to make positive claims such as "the image is subject to censorship." The New York Times article also goes on to admit that a sizable percentage of the Chinese population is still able to identify the image. Just fewer than Americans. This could be because the US uses the photo frequently for its propaganda value while the Chinese government does not. Failure to talk about it frequently however is not the same as censorship. The Radio Free Asia article mentions court cases against a gentleman who put the photo on some liquor bottles. If more documentation of this specific court case from sources outside of RFA could be corroborated, that would be great.

El7ohngai2poovuisieCheYamoh2onupeighoo9aiH2queegoh (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

He was not run over

The article seems to imply that he may have been run over. The video makes it 100% certain that he was not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The tanks appear to not merely try to go around him. But repeatedly stopping to avoid running him over. The article doesn't really make that clear at least in the very first few sentences where they said he stood in front of tanks and then stood in the tanks path, but omit what happened after. 49.186.80.74 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Scottandrewhutchins I fixed it. Added in a short but key 'half' sentence that the tanks had halted to avoid running him over instead of driving over him when he instructed their path. (which is true according to your video.) 49.186.80.74 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

AI generated photo

I archived a snapshot of the Google search results page prominently showing a fake, AI generated selfie of Tank Man: [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20230920115006/https://www.google.com/web/20230920115006/https://www.google.com/search?q=tank+man&hl=en

https://web.archive.org/web/20230920115006/https://www.google.com/web/20230920115006/https://www.google.com/search?q=tank+man&hl=en 2804:388:C2B7:E015:794D:B9A2:B457:AC8F (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that ..."

The one-sentence paragraph It has been suggested that the "Unknown Rebel", if still alive, would never have made himself known as he may have been unaware of his international recognition due to the Chinese media suppression of events relating to the government protests. is disputed.

This seems to be a very creative interpretation of the sentence He may, even now, be unaware of the mystique that surrounds his act. from the Sunday Times source.

I see no reason to keep this paragraph. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

well to me this whole article itself sounds a little creative Huaxiazidi (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)